If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

A copy of Al [Q]aida’s fiery magazine Inspire somehow got inside the prison camps at Guantánamo, a prosecutor disclosed at the war court Wednesday.

How, you say, did this happen? It looks like one of the lawyers smuggled it in:

Navy Cmdr. Andrea Lockhart blurted out the embarrassing disclosure in defending the prison camps commander’s plan to give greater scrutiny to legal mail bound for alleged terrorists. She was discussing a system used by civilian lawyers to send materials to Guantánamo captives who are suing the U.S. for their freedom through habeas corpus petitions in Washington, D.C.

And why are Civilian lawyers gaining access to these people who are facing Military trials? I was always under the impression only Military lawyers were used in military trials.

A copy of Al [Q]aida’s fiery magazine Inspire somehow got inside the prison camps at Guantánamo, a prosecutor disclosed at the war court Wednesday.

How, you say, did this happen? It looks like one of the lawyers smuggled it in:

Navy Cmdr. Andrea Lockhart blurted out the embarrassing disclosure in defending the prison camps commander’s plan to give greater scrutiny to legal mail bound for alleged terrorists. She was discussing a system used by civilian lawyers to send materials to Guantánamo captives who are suing the U.S. for their freedom through habeas corpus petitions in Washington, D.C.

And why are Civilian lawyers gaining access to these people who are facing Military trials? I was always under the impression only Military lawyers were used in military trials.

The UCMJ permits civilian counsel in lieu of military if the defendant requests it and pays for it.

The thing that gets me is that they are holding trials for combatants during wartime. Under the Geneva Conventions, we can detain combatants for the duration of hostilities. We don't need to try them, unless we are charging them with war crimes, and the SCOTUS interpretation of the law that allows them habeas corpus rights is absurd.

The UCMJ permits civilian counsel in lieu of military if the defendant requests it and pays for it.

The thing that gets me is that they are holding trials for combatants during wartime. Under the Geneva Conventions, we can detain combatants for the duration of hostilities. We don't need to try them, unless we are charging them with war crimes, and the SCOTUS interpretation of the law that allows them habeas corpus rights is absurd.

What if the hostilities don't end in this lifetime? And why should they wait until after?

What if the hostilities don't end in this lifetime? And why should they wait until after?

Then it was a poor life choice for him/her to choose to be a terrorist.

You should really read the Geneva Conventions sometime that cover Prisoner's of War instead of relying on places like KOS and DU for your information.

If you actually read the conventions, you'll find that the type of scum we're holding in Gitmo don't qualify for any type of protection and that POW's in general aren't granted the rights of the coutnry holding them.

Both are a creation of the anti-War pro-Terrorist left in this country. The same type of assclowns that are smuggling pro al-Qaeda propaganda to their "clients" to help keep their morale up.

Then it was a poor life choice for him/her to choose to be a terrorist.

You should really read the Geneva Conventions sometime that cover Prisoner's of War instead of relying on places like KOS and DU for your information.

If you actually read the conventions, you'll find that the type of scum we're holding in Gitmo don't qualify for any type of protection and that POW's in general aren't granted the rights of the coutnry holding them.

Both are a creation of the anti-War pro-Terrorist left in this country. The same type of assclowns that are smuggling pro al-Qaeda propaganda to their "clients" to help keep their morale up.

I have a problem with believing that somebody is guilty of a crime when people are reluctant to give him/her a trial to prove that. Seriously, what's the problem?

I know what some of the laws say, but I don't agree with them. I don't want people being held in definately for "being a terrorist" if they're not one. They
need a trial.

I have a problem with believing that somebody is guilty of a crime when people are reluctant to give him/her a trial to prove that. Seriously, what's the problem?

We're not talking about people plucked randomly off a damn street here Bridget. These are people captured on the field of battle...wearing no uniform of nor fighting under the flag of a recognized or lawful nation state...trying to kill us.

Why is that so hard to understand? When you catch a guy in a house full of components for explosives in the middle of making an IED...there's no way to mistake anything he's doing as an innocent act.

I know what some of the laws say, but I don't agree with them. I don't want people being held in definately for "being a terrorist" if they're not one. They
need a trial.

Then join the U.N. one of those "world governing bodies" and change the damn rules. But understand these rules of war have been in place since before your grandfather was born.

You'd have more success pissing up a rope. Just because you don't like them...doesn't mean that the majority of the people in the world agree with you.

Though it does win you brownie points with thsoe detained at Gitmo.

The ones that are being held are known terrorists having engaged in known terrorist activities. The folders put together on the high value targets and the wire diagrams that go out from them to their associates looks like what the FBI used to have on the Mafia.

They don't need a trial...they certainly don't deserve one IMHO...and how we treat them now is a far cry better than how they would treat you or me if they captured us.

We're not talking about people plucked randomly off a damn street here Bridget. These are people captured on the field of battle...wearing no uniform of nor fighting under the flag of a recognized or lawful nation state...trying to kill us.

Why is that so hard to understand? When you catch a guy in a house full of components for explosives in the middle of making an IED...there's no way to mistake anything he's doing as an innocent act.

Then join the U.N. one of those "world governing bodies" and change the damn rules. But understand these rules of war have been in place since before your grandfather was born.

You'd have more success pissing up a rope. Just because you don't like them...doesn't mean that the majority of the people in the world agree with you.

Though it does win you brownie points with thsoe detained at Gitmo.

The ones that are being held are known terrorists having engaged in known terrorist activities. The folders put together on the high value targets and the wire diagrams that go out from them to their associates looks like what the FBI used to have on the Mafia.

They don't need a trial...they certainly don't deserve one IMHO...and how we treat them now is a far cry better than how they would treat you or me if they captured us.

I agree that we treat them better than they would us.

I do think most people being brought in are guilty.

I still think there should be a trial though. You never answered the question. Why not have a trial? You have the evidence, so what's wrong with presenting it? Truth is the more you push the idea of these people not having a trial, the more you have people considering the possibility that they're innocent.